Talk:Hairy Maclary
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs. |
|||
OK, a little more background and analysis, a portrait of the culture from which this masterpiece sprung, a hefty reference section and and some inotes, and how could it NOT be a FAC? But I see some empty section headers here. Should it spend a little time in Giano's userspace? Remember, we admins can get quite frisky about speedying stuff. --Bishonen | talk 13:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
-
- No, it should not. Hairy is a well known and very popuar hero to many children. The books have been translated into many many languages. Hairy will be well known to many editors who will wish to contribute to this interesting page on a well known subject, (far more well known than many of the subjects currently on FAC, and of, at least equal fictional value to that of a dalek - and a lot less frightening to children). The section headers are merely "pour encouragement les autres". Giano | talk 14:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think we need to take this to Wikipedia:Requests for turning a blind eye. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:34, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- There is no need to turn a blind eye - this is a perfectly legitimate and notable subject (see how manty gooogle hits he gets) and quite frankly I am surprise that both of you with your literal leanings are not more enthuesiastic to promote literature on Wikipedia Giano | talk 14:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't question the reality of the subject (in fact I could probably recite one or two of the stories from memory), but I wonder about referencing some of the more interesting claims made under the social implications heading given the current state of the relevant research. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:45, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- If you say so. Me, I'd never heard of the books, but I've now done a little research into critical approaches—predictably, the main meat turned out to be Sontag and Montesquieu—and made a start on a new section. Feel free to remove it if desired, but I'm confident I'll be able to remedy the rather vague and fluffy quality of the writing once I've managed to read one or two of the actual books—still haven't clapped eyes on them, unfortunately. Bishonen | talk 01:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't question the reality of the subject (in fact I could probably recite one or two of the stories from memory), but I wonder about referencing some of the more interesting claims made under the social implications heading given the current state of the relevant research. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:45, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- There is no need to turn a blind eye - this is a perfectly legitimate and notable subject (see how manty gooogle hits he gets) and quite frankly I am surprise that both of you with your literal leanings are not more enthuesiastic to promote literature on Wikipedia Giano | talk 14:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think we need to take this to Wikipedia:Requests for turning a blind eye. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:34, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- No, it should not. Hairy is a well known and very popuar hero to many children. The books have been translated into many many languages. Hairy will be well known to many editors who will wish to contribute to this interesting page on a well known subject, (far more well known than many of the subjects currently on FAC, and of, at least equal fictional value to that of a dalek - and a lot less frightening to children). The section headers are merely "pour encouragement les autres". Giano | talk 14:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Having read the book, I have a strong feeling that the 'critical interpretations' section is (to put it mildly) bunkum. Are there some sources or references that have evidence of this critical approach? Ziggurat 04:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- The caption of the Egyptian photo is hilarious - "On one level, Hairy can be read as a modern re-invocation of ancient Egyptian avatars." You have got to be kidding me... Lisiate 00:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I beg your pardon. That caption was added by an arbitrator, and noted writer of cultural Featured Articles, User:Filiocht. Bishonen | talk 00:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC).
- So what? It's silly to suggest that a series of children's books about the capers of a small hairy dog bear any resemblence to Anubis or any other Egyptian deity. Oh and the comparison to Ezra Pound is pretty far-fetched as well. The Iliad and the Odyssey are both narratives written in verse as well. Shall we add them to? Lisiate 23:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I beg your pardon. That caption was added by an arbitrator, and noted writer of cultural Featured Articles, User:Filiocht. Bishonen | talk 00:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Removal of "Comparative Analysis" section
I notice with sadness that the section on comparative analysis has been removed from this page. I would like to ask the reasons for this, and to gauge whether or not there was a general consensus that the piece should have been removed.
I feel that it is legitimate to compare pieces of literature within the same genre; and that although the tone of the analysis was light-hearted, it was well referenced, it added interest to the article, and it helped the reader to appreciate the genuine talent of Lynley Dodds.
What do folk think? WikiwikiwikiwikiWildWildWest 15:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Analysis needs citation, per WP:OR. Ziggurat 20:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think it is a very sad loss that such a theory has been lost to mankind in this wantonly vandalistic edit [1]. Doubtless the education of children will suffer globally as result of this narrow minded philosophy and I think the social implications of the edit should be considered also. It is all too easy to see Lynley Dodd. as a mere children's author and forget the hidden messages and deep philosophy behind her writings. We should ask ourselves - Where would we be if Plato had been forced to conform to wikipedia standards and his writing mercilessly censored by those who did not understand it. Giano | talk 13:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm sorry to see this once flourishing page suffer the death by a thousand cuts. It would almost be more humane to put it out of its misery. :-( Frutti di Mare 15:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC).
- I know you mean it as a joke, but I don't appreciate the edit being described as vandalistic. If you don't want this content lost to mankind, can I recommend Uncyclopedia? Ziggurat 20:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] That's Hairy Maclary not Hairy
I've never heard of him being referred to by his first name alone: the article should not do this. Nankai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.46.225 (talk)
